History, Geography, & MilitaryDiscuss UVA Prof Thinks Anti-Jefferson Scholars Are Trying To Suck Up To Department Chairs at the Political Forums; The ongoing jihad to purge US history of any leaders deemed offensive by anyone includes the allegation that Thomas Jefferson ...

UVA Prof Thinks Anti-Jefferson Scholars Are Trying To Suck Up To Department Chairs

The ongoing jihad to purge US history of any leaders deemed offensive by anyone includes the allegation that Thomas Jefferson raped his slave producing offspring. University of Virginia law school professor Bob Turner conducted research into the veracity of these allegations.

Quote:

The law professor traced the origins of the “Jefferson is a rapist” narrative all the way back to 18th century political journalist and pamphlet writer James Thompson Callendar, whom he argued tried to smear Jefferson when the Founding Father refused to appoint Callendar as postmaster of Richmond. Turner asserts that Callendar first branded Jefferson a French agent and then an atheist, neither of which stuck, before claiming the former president had an affair with Hemings. Callendar claimed Jefferson and Hemings produced a son named “Tom,” though six DNA tests refuted the allegation and Jefferson’s political adversaries Alexander Hamilton and John Adams also dismissed them.

The allegation isn't going away despite the evidence.

Quote:

Turner explained that the narrative resurfaced when New York Law School — not to be confused with New York University Law School — professor Annette Gordon-Reed published “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” alleging an affair between Hemings and Jefferson. However, Turner and over a dozen other Jefferson scholars investigated the charge, as detailed in “The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission,” and, with only one slight outlier, their opinions that Jefferson fathered any of Hemings’ children ranged from “serious skepticism” to a belief that the claim was “almost certainly false.”

Don't expect the facts to stop the mob from tearing down Jefferson memorials as well as smearing him.

The ongoing jihad to purge US history of any leaders deemed offensive by anyone includes the allegation that Thomas Jefferson raped his slave producing offspring. University of Virginia law school professor Bob Turner conducted research into the veracity of these allegations.

The allegation isn't going away despite the evidence.

Don't expect the facts to stop the mob from tearing down Jefferson memorials as well as smearing him.

Jefferson personally designed and oversaw the original construction of UVA. Had a telescope installed on his patio so he could observe the proceedings. There's no doubt that some slave brought him sweet tea while was observing.

The ongoing jihad to purge US history of any leaders deemed offensive by anyone includes the allegation that Thomas Jefferson raped his slave producing offspring. University of Virginia law school professor Bob Turner conducted research into the veracity of these allegations.

The allegation isn't going away despite the evidence.

Don't expect the facts to stop the mob from tearing down Jefferson memorials as well as smearing him.

This however, has no effect on the insane mob at the gate with rakes and pitchforks, demanding their understandings of social justice be exercised at the expense of historical honesty.

Jefferson inherited his slaves and at no time during his lifetime was he able to free them. As "property of the estate" they were part of the collateral for loans that Jefferson had against the estate. Jefferson was a notoriously bad businessman that was always in deep debt. Only if he owned the slaves where they were not considered as collateral against a loan would he have been able to provide for their freedom. Todays analogy would be if you own a car but have a loan against it you can't just give it away. The loan must be paid off first. The "title" to the car belongs to the loan company and the "title" to Jefferson's slaves also belonged to the loan company that held the mortgage against his estate.

George Washington, also a person that inherited slaves from his family and Martha's family, was a much better businessman and he freed all of the slaves he had upon his death.

That Jefferson owned slaves or his personal relationship with Sally Hemmings has absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson's place in American history. A place in history that "conservatives" today typically ignore. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most well known progressive liberals of his era and much of Jefferson's liberal philosophy is far to the left of what the Progressive Democrats propose today. A person cannot be a conservative and also be a supporter of Jefferson's extremely progressive liberal ideology.

We an just take one simply example of Jefferson that today's conservatives reject.

Jefferson believed that the Right of Expatriation (i.e. the right of a person to leave their country of birth and immigrate to another country of their choice) was a natural right of the person that even the unanimous will of the people of a country had no authority to violate.

Quote:

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806. FE 8:458

The person may by any effectual and unequivocal act ignore any law prohibiting them from leaving the country of their birth and immigration to the country of their choice. It is their Right of Liberty that provides them with this Right to Ignore any immigrations laws that prevent them from exercising the subordinate Right of Expatriation.

Thomas Jefferson, as with the other ideological liberals of his time, opposed any restrictions upon immigration. It was for that reason that the US Constitution did not grant any power to Congress to impose immigrations restrictions (and still doesn't).

So how many conservative Republicans today are calling for "open borders" when Jefferson stated that any restriction upon immigration was a violation of a fundamental right of the person?

Want another one? Jefferson clearly stated in the DOI that the powers of government are granted by the "people" and the US Constitution explicitly states that members of the House are to be "selected" by the People and the 17th Amendment states members of the Senate are to be "elected" by the People. The Constitution also defines who the "People" are because the federal government is required to count all of the "People" every ten years for the apportionment of the States. The "People" include all permanent resident citizens and non-citizens of the United States.

So how many conservative Republicans are advocating the Right to Vote for permanent resident non-citizens in compliance with the US Constitution based upon Jefferson's explicit statement in the Declaration of Independence that the "governed" (all permanent residents of the nation) are the People that grant power to our government?

Jefferson inherited his slaves and at no time during his lifetime was he able to free them. As "property of the estate" they were part of the collateral for loans that Jefferson had against the estate. Jefferson was a notoriously bad businessman that was always in deep debt. Only if he owned the slaves where they were not considered as collateral against a loan would he have been able to provide for their freedom. Todays analogy would be if you own a car but have a loan against it you can't just give it away. The loan must be paid off first. The "title" to the car belongs to the loan company and the "title" to Jefferson's slaves also belonged to the loan company that held the mortgage against his estate.

George Washington, also a person that inherited slaves from his family and Martha's family, was a much better businessman and he freed all of the slaves he had upon his death.

That Jefferson owned slaves or his personal relationship with Sally Hemmings has absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson's place in American history. A place in history that "conservatives" today typically ignore. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most well known progressive liberals of his era and much of Jefferson's liberal philosophy is far to the left of what the Progressive Democrats propose today. A person cannot be a conservative and also be a supporter of Jefferson's extremely progressive liberal ideology.

We an just take one simply example of Jefferson that today's conservatives reject.

Jefferson believed that the Right of Expatriation (i.e. the right of a person to leave their country of birth and immigrate to another country of their choice) was a natural right of the person that even the unanimous will of the people of a country had no authority to violate.

The person may by any effectual and unequivocal act ignore any law prohibiting them from leaving the country of their birth and immigration to the country of their choice. It is their Right of Liberty that provides them with this Right to Ignore any immigrations laws that prevent them from exercising the subordinate Right of Expatriation.

Thomas Jefferson, as with the other ideological liberals of his time, opposed any restrictions upon immigration. It was for that reason that the US Constitution did not grant any power to Congress to impose immigrations restrictions (and still doesn't).

So how many conservative Republicans today are calling for "open borders" when Jefferson stated that any restriction upon immigration was a violation of a fundamental right of the person?

Want another one? Jefferson clearly stated in the DOI that the powers of government are granted by the "people" and the US Constitution explicitly states that members of the House are to be "selected" by the People and the 17th Amendment states members of the Senate are to be "elected" by the People. The Constitution also defines who the "People" are because the federal government is required to count all of the "People" every ten years for the apportionment of the States. The "People" include all permanent resident citizens and non-citizens of the United States.

So how many conservative Republicans are advocating the Right to Vote for permanent resident non-citizens in compliance with the US Constitution based upon Jefferson's explicit statement in the Declaration of Independence that the "governed" (all permanent residents of the nation) are the People that grant power to our government?

You seem to have confused and conflated the term Liberal/Progressive of today with what it meant in 1776. It is a relative term at best,

Conservatives of today hold to the idea's of the Founders and are chastised by modern liberal/Progressives for holding onto such old fashioned values. You claim them to be liberal/progressive. Not under today's definition of those terms.

It's the same as suggesting the People's Republic of North Korea is actually a republic. It is not.

Thus making you logic flawed for most of this post, and much of your political positions about the issues of our nation today.

Progressive insist on change from what was established by the Jefferson/Madison "Progressives." An illogical, if not oxymoronic argument.

If they were the same, why do they not respect what was created by the progressives of 1776 in 1789 and wish it preserved? And why then the demand for change?

Speaking of OXYMORONIC,,,; what does Jefferson's Progressivisms have to do with the Immigration issues befuddling us today? The word you should be looking for is "nothing."

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

If you wish to express Jefferson's views on Immigration, please point out the difference between 240 years ago and now, the fact that he was mostly speaking of European immigrants and under the assumption they wish to immigrant and become Americans.

You posted one of many arguments Jefferson made for expatriations. Here is a more comprehensive list of his stated values and opinions on the subject.

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

31. Immigration Policy

The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806. FE 8:458

"Expatriation [is] a natural right, and acted on as such by all nations in all ages." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:12

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121

31.1 The Obligation to Provide Asylum

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289

"[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141

31.2 Rights of Immigrants

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

31.3 Too Rapid Growth by Immigration

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

"I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but in the meantime, they will teach us something we do not know." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:121

"A first question is, whether it is desirable for us to receive at present the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old cities of Europe? A second and more difficult one is, when even good handicraftsmen arrive here, is it better for them to set up their trade, or go to the culture of the earth? Whether their labor in their trade is worth more than their labor on the soil, increased by the creative energies of the earth?" --Thomas Jefferson to J. Lithgow, 1805. ME 11:56

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

The bolding is mine. This most represents the intention of the "open immigration" Jefferson envisioned. It does not comply well with the modern progressive concept of "diversity" with a targeted abhorrence to cultural mixing and subsequent cultural appropriation. He was also worrisome about too many coming, transplanting their Old world ideas and values and infusing the NEW WORLD with old ideas the new American experiment had rejected.

I suspect Jefferson's concept was that immigrants would not aspire to be in America but to be Americans

If you are going to stand behind Jefferson's views, I would suggest you should stand on them all.

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.